Sikkim Court May 2000 Judgments
State of Sikkim Vs. Deepen Rai and ors.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3166
Ripusudan Dayal, C.J.1. This criminal revision was registered by this Court suo motu to be satisfied as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the Order dated 24th February, 2000 by Sri S. W. Lepcha, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, East.2. The three accused were charged under Section 392/323, IPC read with Section 34. All the respondents namely, Deepen Rai, Manoj Tamang and the complainant Robin Tamang filed a compromise petition dated 19th February, 2000 that they had amicably compromised the matter outside the Court. There cannot be any doubt that the offence under Section 392 IPC could not be compounded under the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter, an application was filed by Sri N. T. Bhutia, learned Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code stating that since the parties had compromised the matter amicably with the intervention of their well wishers, it was felt that proceeding further with the trial would be meaningless....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dop Raj Subba
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3096
ORDERAnup Deb, J.1. This criminal revision was registered by this Court suo motu to be satisfied as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 23rd February, 2000 passed in Criminal Case No. 8 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, East, whereby for the offence under Section 34(a) of the Sikkim Excise Act, 1992, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for three months. Section 34(a) provides that the offence mentioned therein shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one thousand rupees but in no case the Court shall award a sentence of imprisonment less than three months and a fine of five hundred rupees. The order of sentence by the learned Judicial Magistrate is contrary to the specific statutory provision and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.2. In the result, the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Sikkim Vs. Tek Bahadur Tamang and anr.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: May-26-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4617
ORDER1. This criminal revision was registered suo motu by this Court to be satisfied as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 9-2-2000 delivered by Dr. S.W. Lepcha, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North in Criminal Case No. 83/99. By that order, the accused Tek Bahadur Tamang was charged under Section 380, IPC for committing theft of one country-made unlicenced gun. He was also charged under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The other accused, Dharma Bahadur Rai was charged under 'Section 25(1), (b), (a) of the Arms Act.' On 9-2-2000, when the impugned order was passed, five prosecution witnesses namely, Boudha Lama, Ram Maya Tamang, Kumar Rai, Deo Prakash Rai and Bachen Tamang were present. They pleaded guilty on that date. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted Tek Bahadur Tamang under Section 380, IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default of payme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›